londonfog
Well-Known Member
Tennessee law states its legal as long as one party knows a conversation is being recorded.
Supervisor threatens to hang worker for drinking from 'white people' fountain
- Thread starter MidwesternGro
- Start date
Are you sure you're not talking about a telephone conversation?
I'm pretty sure I can leave a microphone in a room and record whatever is said therein.
On the telephone it is different.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Tennessee is a one party consent law.
The law defines an "electronic communication" as "any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by the aid of wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-optical or photo-electronic facilities.
We all realize you are one confused individual but this should clear you up on this matter.
Last edited:
I'm aware of all of that.
Key words are important....
TRANSMITTED
In a room where party a is talking to party b, there is nothing aiding the transmission other than his own vocal cords.
The recording device does not transmit, it records.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
you can't be this dumb ? Does the recorder transfer sound....Learn how to read. What do you do in the real world? Do you work?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Ok, I thought the obvious keyword before the more ambiguous keyword I pointed out was electronic communication.
Dude a talking to dude b, in a room somewhere, face to face, is not electronic.
This law only applies to electronic communication.
If you are talking to Bob in the lobby of an office either of you are allowed to record the conversation without telling the other you are doing so.
What is also legal is if Kim was sitting there earlier and walked off and left a tape recorder to record the conversation.
Anytime you open your mouth and say words, you have no expectation of privacy from anyone or anything within the sound of your voice
londonfog
Well-Known Member
one party consent means one of the parties have to be in on the conversation or agrees to the recording, so Kim has to have permission from one person in the room whom he is recording
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Nope. If Kim is not in the conversation, she has no right to the recording. Only someone who is actually involved in the conversation can record or at least one person involved must agree to the recording.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Does this law state if there is a difference between it occurring on private property and in the public domain?
That's a good point.
It's all about your expectations for privacy.
When you're on the phone, the way phones work let one expect that only the person on the other end can hear you.
If your in Kims house, she can record it.
I don't think Kim can plant a microphone in your living room.
But anywhere public, people are allowed to record anything said within ear shot.
You guys keep arguing with me about this. I admire your spirit and conviction.
This is why there are lawyers, what do the words in that statute mean? What was the legislative intent? How have judges interpreted it in the past?
Many states have essentially the same law, but courts in these states have held differently.
I do know that in my legal writing class, which is a research and legal documents drafting class, we had a fictitious fact pattern given to us, we had to draft pleadings and all that as if we were the attorney presenting them to the court.
it was about slander and recordings were taken.
I remember a little about what Tennessee courts said on this very issue.
you're making valid arguments based off of the language of the law. Applied to two people talking in a place that isn't the dwelling of either, a third party can record it without either knowing.
now, can the person use artificial parabolic antennas to eaves drop from an artificial distance? The courts have never considered that in Tennessee as far as I know.
This is why there are lawyers, what do the words in that statute mean? What was the legislative intent? How have judges interpreted it in the past?
Many states have essentially the same law, but courts in these states have held differently.
I do know that in my legal writing class, which is a research and legal documents drafting class, we had a fictitious fact pattern given to us, we had to draft pleadings and all that as if we were the attorney presenting them to the court.
it was about slander and recordings were taken.
I remember a little about what Tennessee courts said on this very issue.
you're making valid arguments based off of the language of the law. Applied to two people talking in a place that isn't the dwelling of either, a third party can record it without either knowing.
now, can the person use artificial parabolic antennas to eaves drop from an artificial distance? The courts have never considered that in Tennessee as far as I know.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
does not matter in Tennessee. Your home is private but you can still record a conversation with a one party consent. Two party consent fall in the states of California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. also Hawaii but only in a private domain.
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
Sorta like the Donald Sterling issue in California.
When you can and can't record ...
How about all the pundits — myself included — who came down hard on Sterling for his bigoted views? What if we discovered that a private argument with our spouses in which we sounded cruel or sexist (and who hasn't at some point?) was suddenly being viewed worldwide, and readers were clamoring for our firing? Would we staunchly defend First Amendment rights or would we wonder whatever happened to private meaning private?
California has a law — as does Michigan — that says it is criminal to record a conversation unless all parties consent to the recording. It's a law. You can look it up. Yet the same news media that crash down on the slightest infraction by celebrities had no hesitation using something that might have been obtained illegally.
It doesn't matter that the woman's lawyer now claims she was taping with Sterling's consent. This is a lawyer for a woman who uses multiple aliases, takes millions from a married man and is currently walking around L.A. with a visor over her face telling a gossip outlet she will one day be president. Something tells me Sterling's lawyers will have a different take.
But what's important is that nobody knew the real legality of this recording before slapping it onto every news outlet across the globe.
What matters, it seems, is that we got it. Let someone else twist over how.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/clippers/2014/05/04/nba-donald-sterling-private-conversation/8693323/
When you can and can't record ...
How about all the pundits — myself included — who came down hard on Sterling for his bigoted views? What if we discovered that a private argument with our spouses in which we sounded cruel or sexist (and who hasn't at some point?) was suddenly being viewed worldwide, and readers were clamoring for our firing? Would we staunchly defend First Amendment rights or would we wonder whatever happened to private meaning private?
California has a law — as does Michigan — that says it is criminal to record a conversation unless all parties consent to the recording. It's a law. You can look it up. Yet the same news media that crash down on the slightest infraction by celebrities had no hesitation using something that might have been obtained illegally.
It doesn't matter that the woman's lawyer now claims she was taping with Sterling's consent. This is a lawyer for a woman who uses multiple aliases, takes millions from a married man and is currently walking around L.A. with a visor over her face telling a gossip outlet she will one day be president. Something tells me Sterling's lawyers will have a different take.
But what's important is that nobody knew the real legality of this recording before slapping it onto every news outlet across the globe.
What matters, it seems, is that we got it. Let someone else twist over how.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/clippers/2014/05/04/nba-donald-sterling-private-conversation/8693323/
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Sterling himself said that he had her tape him at times because he forgets things...maybe this was one of those times. Sterling himself is not complaining about being taped illegally, his complaint is he thought it to be a private conversation.
your last sentence there is the reason the law exists.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
in most jurisdictions, only one party to the conversation needs to know it is being recorded.
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
I'd like to respond, but I detect a high background RF signal, and believe we are being recorded.